ROAD SIGNAGE

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (17:05): I will just say at the outset it is a bit demeaning that we have to call a quorum so that I can get an audience. I move:

That this house urges the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure to adopt and implement best practice road signage.

In putting forward this motion, I am not trying to suggest that the Department of Transport is not a good department and does not do good things. It is not a general criticism of the department: it is really an opportunity to put forward some matters I have been on about for a while, that is, improving road signage in this state. I notice that a motion coming up shortly from the member for Frome also touches on some aspects of this. This motion is not to criticise the department, but rather to make some suggestions and report on some observations from elsewhere about what I consider to be best practice.

Best practice is a highly subjective term, but I think there are areas in which signage in this state can and should be improved. Under the Australian Road Rules, and expressed in the Road Traffic Act, there are various indicators of signage, road rules and so on, and a lot of people think that throughout Australia there has to be and that there is uniformity in road signage. That is not the case: there is in certain aspects, but it is not an absolute.

For example, if you go to New South Wales, you will find a somewhat different approach to road signage from ours in South Australia, and I will give some examples. Stemming back to the time of the introduction of the 50 km/h default speed limit, here it was decided not to indicate that it is a 50 km/h road. It was taken to be that if there was no sign, then you assumed that it was 50 km/h. That clearly saves money because you do not have to put up signs. New South Wales took a different approach: when you enter a 50 km/h area, they indicate on the perimeter, not inside, that you are entering a 50 km/h zone. If you go through the Blue Mountains and elsewhere, you will see that they carry out that practice, as they do also in the ACT. They do a lot of other things, and some of them are being adopted here.

The Minister for Road Safety, who is in the chamber, indicated that they are now looking at doing what they do in New South Wales, that is, indicate that there is a change in the speed limit ahead—50 km/h ahead in a town, 60 km/h ahead, and so on. We have traditionally had the phase-down speed advice, but I understand that the department is now moving towards a change in the speed limit ahead—50 km/h ahead, 60 km/h ahead, or whatever. I think that is a very good provision, and they do it quite strictly in New South Wales.

New South Wales has also painted speed limits on the roads, and I have tried to get the department to do it here; clearly, they do not want to. They have claimed that it is unsafe for cyclists and motorcyclists, but there is no evidence to back that up. I met with the officers in the Roads and Traffic Authority, and they said that there is no evidence whatsoever to back up the suggestion that it is dangerous to have painted road signs on the road. They have been doing it for more than 20 years, and they even indicated to me the cost and how long they last. The cost was approximately $1,000 for a large-size-painted sign on the road and they last seven to eight years. That was according to one of the senior officers in the department over there.

I believe there is merit in having road speed limits painted because motorists are trying to focus on the road ahead and should be looking to make sure they are a two second gap behind the car in front. Obviously they should be looking in their rear-view mirror—doing all of those sorts of things—and watching their speedometer. I think it is asking a lot to expect a motorist to look in their peripheral vision at signs on the side of the road. Often, when there is only one sign, it is not surprising that a lot of them get caught out because they do not realise that they have entered an altered speed zone and they cop a hefty penalty.

I notice in doing some research in relation to this motion that in China they have painted road signs, as do other countries as well, and I think it is a very good and effective measure. I think it would help with adherence to the speed limit.

My view is that a lot of people who cop a traffic fine are not deliberate speedsters; they are people who inadvertently speed. So I think it is fair that people are told by way of a painted road sign. You do not have to do it everywhere. It is more important that you do it when the speed limit drops drastically and you incur a massive fine. You obviously do not have to do it if you are going into a 50 km/h area, but certainly where you go from a high speed limit down to a lower one very quickly I think it is appropriate that the people can see the sign painted on the road and slow down accordingly.

We still have amongst our road signage in Adelaide some inappropriate signage. The Department for Transport is the final arbiter on speed limit signs. They can override councils, and they do. But if you look at close to where we are—Sir Lewis Cohen Avenue in the Parklands—it has a 50 km/h speed limit and if you move up a stone's throw away to Unley Road it is 60 km/h. In my electorate we have Reynell Road which is 50 km/h and then, once again a stone's throw away, you have Kenihans Road which is 60 km/h, even though the two roads both have houses on each side.

I think other members have raised examples here where we do not have consistency of application. We used to have what was called the 85 percentile rule. The speed limit was what 85 per cent of motorists travelled down a road and that was basically the designated speed. Now what we have is a lot of confusion because motorists are travelling through many parts of South Australia confronted with changing speed limits and, as I say, not painted on the road. It has got to the point where people have told me they will not travel through towns like Balhannah because going through the hills there are so many changes in the limit that they do not know what they are supposed to be doing half the time because the speed limits change that frequently from Verdun right through to Mount Pleasant that by the time you get to Mount Pleasant you have a headache and probably a couple of speeding fines.

There are many other examples I could quote where signage is inappropriate and there are some examples where I think a sign is necessary. I was reading the Mount Barker Courier, which is an excellent paper, where this week some 'goose' was clocked doing 177 on the freeway somewhere near Callington. It probably wouldn't matter what sign you had up for someone like that, but between where you turn into the freeway at Mount Barker, Mount Barker to Callington, Callington to Murray Bridge, you do not get any reminder speed limit signs. There are always police monitoring speed on that road, at great cost to the taxpayer I guess, but I think that you need reminder signs. However, the department will not put in a speed limit sign between, say, Mount Barker and Callington or Callington and Murray Bridge. It assumes that when you come onto the freeway that is it. What happens, though, is that people get out there and think 'Gee, I'm out in the middle of nowhere,' and they plant the foot. People need to be reminded of the speed limit.

I have not won that one. I would be prepared to pay for the sign telling people that the speed limit on that freeway is 110. The department has big signs up, sponsored by the Motor Accident Commission, telling people that they are wankers and all that sort of unprofessional language, but it will not put up a sign to remind people what the speed limit is when they get out and there are no houses or people in sight.

We are seeing more and more of the shopping strip speed zones, and I am a great supporter of them. Part of King William Road has just been designated a 40 km/h zone, but there is no neon sign there, as there is on Goodwood Road. Then again, Goodwood Road has a different speed limit to King William Road, in the shopping centre. Likewise Blackwood, which has a shopping zone speed limit, is different from the King William Road one but there is no neon sign, as is the case on Goodwood Road.

As I said, I am all in favour of having those speed limits lowered in shopping areas where you have high pedestrian traffic, but you need to clearly tell people that they are going from a higher speed limit to a lower one. Likewise, around the Showgrounds and other entertainment areas, if you are going to have a much lowered speed limit you need to tell people; you need to indicate, preferably with some of the new technology, the neon signs. That is what I call best practice.

The department has done a good job on Goodwood Road. You can see that, when people see the lowered neon speed limit, they slow down accordingly. There will always be some who do not, but it is very effective. That technology should be used more and more to alert people. Coming into Blackwood, for example, it is a 50km/h zone, but many people do not see the signs because they are in amongst the trees. That just reinforces the point I made before that if it is not painted on the road and you do not have something like a flashing neon sign, you are likely to get people breaking the limit. I think the shopping strip speed zoning needs to be extended, but it needs to be accompanied by properly illuminated signs, so that, if people are shopping on Norwood Parade or wherever, there is recognition that there is a lower speed zone, and there is an appropriate sign to go with it.

I mentioned previously 'Speed limit ahead', and the minister has indicated that his department is looking at introducing more of those. An area that ties in with this is the work zone. The minister has indicated to me that they are looking at the provisions relating to that and the application of work areas and so on. A lot of people are confused by them, partly because contractors often do not put an 'End work zone' sign up. Some of them are also using a sign which, although I am not a lawyer, I doubt is legal. It says 'Work zone ahead' and '25' or '40'. I do not think that is legal, because it would only apply when you are actually at the work zone, not telling people that there is a work zone ahead and then lowering the speed limit at that point.

I question whether that is actually legal. However, the penalty for infringement is very high—it can be $700 plus—and many people have been caught. For example, near the Britannia Roundabout they think 'Oh, I'm out of the work zone,' and bang, they get hit, because there is no indication that they are still in a work zone.

In New South Wales, in what I call best practice, they are very strict about this. They have very strict rules about the length of the work zone and the signage. It will have 'Speed limit enforced'. In South Australia we get a disregard for some of that signage because sometimes the signs are up but there is no evidence of any work being done, having been done, or likely to be done, so people think 'I'm going to just carry on,' and they ignore the warning signs.

I am told that no-one has ever challenged the work zones in court, but I would welcome the minister and his department having a look at that whole issue, because I think the signage needs to be improved, and I think you will get greater adherence to it because the protection of the workers and the contractors is very important. We do not want idiots going past at a high speed putting workers' lives at risk but, in fairness, the signage should be accurate and appropriate, and there should be an indication when you come to the end of that work zone.

Mr BROCK (Frome) (17:20): I also rise to speak on the motion put forward by the member for Fisher and congratulate him for bringing this forward. Firstly, I make it quite clear that this is no reflection on the Department of Transport and I am not saying that they are not doing the right thing, but I believe that we can always review our operations—and I have said that in this house before—and look at what other people, other states, and other countries do to try and implement and improve not only our road safety but also everything else that goes along with it.

As most members know here I am in a country electorate and I probably do around 70,000 to 100,000 kilometres per annum. I am on the road a fair bit and, as with other country members on this side of the house, I see quite a few what I would call, unsavoury actions from other people travelling on the road. One of the biggest concerns that I have, as the member for Fisher has indicated, is when you are coming into an area and you are doing 110 and, all of a sudden, it goes down to 80 and there is no warning of that. We need to warn people that they are coming into a lower speed limit area, because it is very daunting. I know people who have not been in accidents but they have been pinged for it by the South Australia Police and, rightly so, if that is the way it is, but I think we need to be more realistic about that.

The other issue that I find very frightening is when we are driving on the road (and I will use the area just outside of Crystal Brook on the Augusta Highway) and, all of a sudden, about four kilometres out of Crystal Brook, unannounced on the road ahead are unbroken lines, and an area turning right into Crystal Brook where people can still pass. Then, all of sudden, they get into the area at this particular intersection and, bang, they are onto this broken line, or the section where the lines are for the turn right section, and they do not see it, especially at night time, and that can be very dangerous.

I have seen quite a few near misses, and it is not because of the speed. It is within the speed limit, but because of cars in front—and there might be a caravan doing 80 and somebody will go past that and then, all of sudden, they are in a no-go zone and that is very dangerous. The other issue is that as you are approaching an overtaking lane coming the other way, again, there is no warning to say that there is an overtaking lane coming up within the next 300 to 400 metres. Again, you are behind a slow moving vehicle and then you can go out to pass, and it is still the same thing, and that is pretty evident on the Augusta Highway also.

I have another concern, and I will use Port Pirie for the argument. We have DTEI roads coming into Pirie and then, as you are going into the main city centre itself, you come to the roundabout and you are on a 60 km/h road then, all of a sudden, you go past a roundabout and head towards the CBD area itself, and it goes onto a council road. There is no indication there that as soon as you go past that roundabout you are in a 50 km/h zone, and I have asked the local department there to look at that signage. The signage for 50 is around 400 metres further on, and that is a very confusing issue.

The other issue is that you are going down Three Chain Road in Port Pirie, which is a department road at 60 km/h, and it is double laned, coming into a single lane, but people travelling through there do not realise that when you turn off into one of the residential streets, you are coming into a 50 zone. Again, there is no signage on those arterial roads to say that you are coming into a 50 zone. I know the law says '50 unless otherwise signposted', but people do not understand that. They do not understand the different locations there.

I have travelled overseas—and the member for Fisher has already spoken about painting the speed signs on the road itself—and that is what they have in Scotland. They have the actual speed on the road itself as another warning that you are coming into it. They also have the approaching reduced speed limit painted on the road—that is, three, two or one line, which mean that it is getting closer and closer—and it gives you an indication of how close you are to approaching that reduced speed limit.

The other suggestion that has been made to me is that, when you are approaching an area—for argument's sake, I will use Crystal Brook again—where you are coming into an unbroken-line sector, the lines before that should be painted a different colour. For argument's sake, they are suggesting maybe painting it orange. Again, that is a warning that you are coming into an area where you have a no-overtaking sector. But no matter what we do here, we have to make certain that we are looking at the best practice. As I said, this is no reflection on the department.

The member for Fisher has also mentioned work zones. I see these on lots of the roads out there. They have a zone of 25 km/h, and there is no activity whatsoever. It goes from 110 to 80 to 60 to 40 to 25. I believe those signs are frustrating and annoying to motorists because they know that there is no activity there, especially on weekends, so they get into the habit of ignoring them when the workers are there. I think that is another issue that the minister should take on board. I also have a motion a bit later about school crossings. Again, the issue there is that there is a lot of confusion about the different style, different speeds and different criteria.

Certainly, I am very passionate, as are other members here, about our roads and our safety on the roads. I do not believe it is always about the speed: it is about the stupid activities, incompetence and inattention of some drivers, and, quite frankly, I think that we need to look at that quite seriously. I certainly commend this motion, and I congratulate the member for Fisher for bringing it before the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.